ACOSS Poverty Report 2012_Final

Poverty in Australia

The first in a series of ‘Poverty and Inequality in Australia’ reports

from the Australian Council of Social Service

Poverty in Australia: ACOSS Paper 194

First published in 2012 by the

Australian Council of Social Service

Locked Bag 4777

Strawberry Hills, NSW, 2012 Australia

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.acoss.org.au

ISSN: 1326 7124

ISBN: 978 0 85871 082 5

© Australian Council of Social Service

This publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism,

or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without

written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the Publications Officer, Australian Council of

Social Service. Copies are available from the address above.

It was prepared by Senior Policy Officer Peter Davidson with assistance from Penny Dorsch and

Hannah Gissane. The research was commissioned from Peter Saunders, Bruce Bradbury and Melissa

Wong from the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of NSW.

ACOSS would like to acknowledge the support of the Morawetz Social Justice Fund, Jobs Australia,

Anglicare Australia, Society of St Vincent de Paul National Council, and The Salvation Army (Eastern

and Southern Territories).

Australian Council of Social Service 1

Contents

Preface 2

1. Introduction 6

2. Summary of findings: people living below the poverty line 7

3. The risk and profile of poverty 10

4. Gender 14

5. Age 16

6. Family Type 18

7. Country of birth 21

8. Labour force status 23

9. Main income source 26

10. Location 28

11. Poverty among people on social security payments 31

11. Trends in the risk of poverty from 2003 to 2010 (50% of median income

poverty line) 37

2 Australian Council of Social Service

Preface

Dr Cassandra Goldie, CEO, ACOSS

This is the first of a regular series of factual reports on Poverty and Inequality in

Australia prepared by ACOSS in partnership with Anglicare Australia, St Vincent

de Paul Society, and the Salvation Army.

Economic problems come to our attention because they are regularly measured

and reported. Opinion leaders and policy makers pour over the data on gross

domestic product and unemployment. The social implications are often

overlooked because they aren’t measured, and if they are, they aren’t brought

to public attention. Poverty and inequality are good examples of this.

People are concerned about extremes of inequality and poverty but have little information to go by.

Most people think that income and wealth are distributed more equally than it is and have little idea

who is living below the poverty line.

This report aims to fill some of the information gaps by measuring the extent of poverty in Australia

and the people most effected. We hope it leads to informed discussion and policy action.

Dr David Morawetz, Director Social Justice Fund

Poverty is defined as the pronounced deprivation of well-being, or the

inability to satisfy one's basic needs. In such a wealthy nation as ours, its

existence is shameful and it reduces us all.

I would like to acknowledge the enormous contribution made by Australian

charities and community welfare groups, who strive valiantly to rid us of the

scourge of poverty, and who work so hard on a daily basis to make a

difference in the lives of those less fortunate.

Your ongoing support and care for those less well-off reminds us all of our own humanity, and makes

us all richer.

I particularly want to acknowledge the many years of courageous work by the Australian Council of

Social Service as the peak body for this vital sector. For nearly 60 years ACOSS has led the charge,

producing volumes of evidence-based research, lobbying governments of all political persuasion,

and speaking out in public and in the media as the national voice of all people affected by poverty

and inequality.

In Australia, we might not have the level of abject poverty that one sees in developing countries, and

we have only a fraction of the world’s 1.3 billion poor. But in a country as wealthy and as lucky as

ours, it is a travesty that there are still so many people living in poverty. We can do better.

Addressing this issue is not just a matter for governments. Poverty is bad for our social

relationships, and for our sense of community. It is bad for business. Most of all, it is bad for those

who are experiencing it: for their sense of self-worth, for their physical well-being, and perhaps most

importantly for their children, for our future generations. We all need to do something about it. This

is the reason why I strongly support this timely report. It’s a call to arms for all of us. It’s time to act.


David Thompson, Jobs Australia

Jobs Australia, a long standing principal sponsor of Anti-Poverty Week, first

published these poems (and many others just like them) in 2010 to bring home the

meaning of poverty experienced by many Australians. A lack of money – as we can

see from the poems – inspires not just shame, anxiety, and occasionally stoic

resignation, but also a powerful sense that things could be different. The basic

decencies of respectful encounters with institutions, which can cost nothing, matter

a lot. And it is plain to see that people living in poverty have immense reserves of

energy and drive to make a decent living for themselves, and a future for their

children, if only they are given the right chances.

It is not them or us, they are us.

Missing

I haven’t seen a film for 8-9 years. / It’s $12 – / I just can’t. / I have no social life/unless it’s free./I

can’t afford to go to a café / and drink coffee – / I just can’t. / I tried putting $3 a day into my budget.

I felt a little more human, / existing within society… / I had to stop doing it,/I couldn’t live

anymore./Like being invited out to dinner / or a friend saying, / ‘do you want to catch up for a meal?’

I just can’t, no. / I miss it. Tracey

Dole bludger

I’m desperate for money./ If there were any jobs…/ …I’d be started at 9 o’clock this morning./ I have

to tell everyone I’m a dole bludger and / I don’t have any money./ Nobody wants to know a

dole bludger. / My family thinks I’m still working./ I got sacked four years ago. / I didn’t tell them I’m

a dole bludger. / Mum would get upset,/ she wants my future to be secure. /To be able to tell my

family that I’ve got a job…./ a proper job…. / Nobody wants to know a / dole bludger. Bettina

Dr John Falzon, CEO, St Vincent de Paul Society National Council

The truth told by those on the margins is louder than the lies told about them.

Our problem in Australia is not the “idleness of the poor.” Our problem is

inequality. This is a social question, not a question of behaviour. We do irreparable

harm when we turn it into a question of individual behaviour, blaming people for

their own poverty. It is a matter of deep shame for a wealthy nation like ours that

our unemployment benefits, for example, have been kept deliberately low as a

means of humiliating the very people they were originally designed to assist.

Charities like the St Vincent de Paul Society will always be there for the people who are waging a

daily battle from below the poverty line, but the message we are hearing is that people do not want

charity. They want justice. And we support them in this struggle for their rights.

We support helping people into the paid workforce. The time has come, however, to abandon the

foolish notion that forcing them into deeper poverty improves their chances of employment. You

don’t build people up by putting them down. You don’t help them get work by forcing them into

poverty.

We stand with all who are trying to create a good society; a society that does not accept the scourge

of rising inequality and exclusion from the essentials of life; a society that does not humiliate people.

New passions are springing up. They point to glaring contradictions. They also offer the promise that

another kind of society is possible, and can be created collectively under the guiding stars of struggle

and hope.


Kasy Chambers, Executive Director Anglicare Australia

Anglicare Australia seeks to engage with all Australians to build communities of

resilience, hope and justice. Underpinning that mission is our belief there is a

place for everyone; and that everyone can participate and have a stake in our

society.

But experience across the Anglicare network, working with almost 420,000 Australians, is that this is

not the case. Poverty in modern Australia is a profoundly isolating experience. It traps people out of

work, and limits their connection to others. It robs people of their stake in the wider world and the

rest of us of their contribution.

We don’t really know – nationally – who poverty affects. Anglicare Australia’s annual rental housing

snapshot this year found virtually no affordable private housing for people living on the lowest

government payments right across Australia. But the situation for a family trying to live on a

minimum wage was little better.

The impact of growing inequity in the paid work force – and the insecurity and poverty that comes

with many short term jobs – is showing up at Anglicare services which deliver financial counselling,

emergency relief and family support. We need to pay more attention to the shape of poverty in

Australia, and its enduring nature.

This Poverty Report is important because it will give us robust, up to date and reliable information on

the extent and depth of poverty in Australia. It will start to fill in the gaps between our international

affluence and the economic and social adjustment that are reflected in the everyday work of

Anglicare agencies in communities across Australia.

That is why Anglicare Australia – drawing on support from Anglicare Southern Queensland, Anglicare

Victoria and Anglicare Diocese of Sydney – is so pleased to contribute this project. Australia needs

the information and the insights that come with this and subsequent reports to steer the policies that

allow all Australians, particularly the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, to play their part in our

society.

We stand with all who are trying to create a good society; a society that does not accept the scourge

of rising inequality and exclusion from the essentials of life; a society that does not humiliate people.

New passions are springing up. They point to glaring contradictions. They also offer the promise that

another kind of society is possible, and can be created collectively under the guiding stars of struggle

and hope.


Major Brad Halse, The Salvation Army

The Salvation Army in Australia provides hundreds of social programs through a

huge network of support services, community centres and churches across the

nation. The Salvation Army annually provides more than a million occasions of

service. This includes more than 150,000 people provided with emergency relief,

and more than 160,000 meals in any given year.

These numbers verify that for a large number of people in the community, poverty is a reality. They

struggle to meet everyday expenses and financial commitments. Of significant concern is that these

individuals also experience severe levels of deprivation (access to services and activities), which

further compromises living standards and inclusion in the Australian community. Another concern is

the disengagement of children due to costs associated with activities. More than half of adult

respondents in a recent Salvation Army study reported being unable to afford to pay for out-of-

school activities, and nearly 40% could not afford for their children to participate in school activities.

People are regularly going without items, services and activities that are essential for living and

participating in community life.

Income poverty is just one aspect of broader disadvantage that organisations and charities, such as

The Salvation Army, work with daily. People living in poverty are forced to make critical choices about

their daily living circumstances, and miss out on opportunities and activities that most of the

community would take for granted.

The Salvation Army urges the Federal Government to implement change now to help reduce poverty

in this country. It is not enough to maintain the status quo.


1. Introduction

Despite 20 years of economic growth, many people in Australia do not have at least a

decent basic standard of living.

One simple way to measure this that’s widely used by Governments and expert

bodies such as the OECD is the number of people living below a poverty line. This

report uses two poverty lines, 50% of median household income (half of the ‘middle’

income for all households) and 60% of median income.

The lower of these poverty lines (which is used by the OECD) equates to a very

austere living standard: a disposable income of less than $358 per week for a single

adult (higher for larger households to take account of their greater costs). This

research also takes account of people’s housing costs in measuring poverty.

New figures released in this report for 2010 show that one in eight people,

including one in six children, were living at or below this poverty line.

People in poverty

In 2010:

The poverty line (50% of median income) for a single adult was $358 per

week, for a couple with 2 children it was $752.

2,265,000 people (12.8% of all people) were living below the poverty line,

after taking account of their housing costs.

575,000 children (17.3% of all children) were living below the poverty line.

37% of people on social security payments lived below the poverty line

including 52% of those on Newstart Allowance, 45% of those on Parenting

Payment, 42% of those on Disability Support Pension, 24% of those on

Carer Payment, and 14% of those on Age Pension

62% of people below the poverty line had social security as their main

income and 29% had wages as their main income

The level of poverty was 12.6% in capital cities compared to 13.1% outside

capital cities

The proportion of people in poverty rose by approximately one third of a percent

from 2003 to 2010.


2. Summary of findings: people living below the poverty line

The key finding is that in 2010, after taking account of housing costs, an estimated

2,265,000 people or 12.8% of all people, including 575,000 children (17.3% of all

children), lived in households below the most austere poverty line widely used in

international research. This is set at 50% of the median (middle) disposable income

for all Australian households. In the case of a single adult, in 2010 this poverty line

was $358 per week. In the case of a couple with two children it was $752 (Table 1).

This is the main poverty line used in this report.

A less austere but still low poverty line, that is used to define poverty in Britain,

Ireland and the European Union, is 60% of median income. In the case of a single

adult, this poverty line in Australia was $430 per week in 2010.

When this higher poverty line is used, 3,705,000 people, including 869,000 children,

were found to be living in poverty. This represented 20.9% of all people and 26.1% of

children. A major reason for the large increase in the number of people living below

this income (compared with the lower poverty line) is that many households on social

security payments have incomes (typically pension payments plus small amounts of

private income) that lie in between the two poverty lines.

Table 1 shows the after-tax incomes which constitute poverty lines for different types

of family.

Table 1: Comparison of 50% and 60% of Median Income Poverty Lines in 2009-10

(dollars per week, after tax and including social security payments)

Family Type

50% of median

income

60% of median

income

Lone person $358 $430

Couple only $537 $645

Lone parent with two children $573 $688

Couple with two children $752 $903

Note: For the purposes of this research, housing costs were deducted from these poverty lines.

Table 2 shows the key findings: the number and proportion of individuals living in

households with incomes below these poverty lines in 2009-10, after an adjustment

was made for their housing costs.


Table 2: Numbers and percentages of people living below the 50% and 60% of Median

Income Poverty Lines in 2009-10

50% of median

income

60% of median

income

Number of people below poverty line 2,265,000 3,705,000

Number of children below poverty line 575,000 869,000

Percentage of people below poverty line 12.8% 20.9%

Percentage of children below poverty line 17.3% 26.1%

Note: Individuals in households living below these poverty lines after deducting housing costs.

Table 3 shows the distinctly higher proportion of people living in poverty within the

following at-risk groups compared to the national averages of 12.8% (50% poverty

line) and 20.9% (60% poverty line): unemployed people, single people over 65 years,

people in households mainly reliant on social security, lone parent families, and single

people of working age without children. For example, 63.3% of people in

unemployed households were living below to 50% poverty line and 73.2% lived

below the 60% poverty line.

Table 3: Groups at high risk of poverty: proportions living below Poverty Lines in 2009-

10 (%)

At risk group

50% of median

income

60% of median

income

Unemployed households 63.3 73.2

Single adults over 65 years 23.6 55.8

Households whose main income is social security 36.5 61.3

Lone parent families 25.0 36.4

Single adults (without children) of workforce age 26.4 32.6

All people 12.8 20.9


How poverty is measured in this report

A key internationally accepted tool to measure disadvantage in wealthy countries is

to work out the proportion of the population living below a poverty line. Poverty lines

are usually based on the disposable (after tax) income of households.

In Australian and international poverty research, the poverty line for a single adult is

usually calculated as a proportion of the disposable income of a ‘middle income’

(median) household – in this case 50% and 60%. There are different poverty lines to

take account of the number of adults and children in a household. The research used

in this report takes into account people’s housing costs as well as their incomes. This

makes a difference because people who have low housing costs (such as those who

own their homes outright) are able to achieve a higher standard of living on the same

income than those with higher housing costs (for example, tenants and mortgagers).

The research takes housing costs into account by deducting housing costs (rent,

mortgage payments and rates) from income before calculating the median income

on which the poverty lines are based (which reduces the poverty lines) ad deducting

each household’s housing costs from their income (which reduces household

incomes). In this way, it compares different households’ ability to meet their basic

living costs apart from housing1.

This research was conducted for us by Social Policy Research Centre at the University

of New South Wales2. The data source is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)

Income and Expenditure surveys for 2009-10 and previous years3.

Poverty lines provide one indicator of low income and disadvantage. Other

commonly used indicators of hardship include whether people can afford essentials

such as access to dental care when needed and financial stress4.

Ultimately, the experience of living on a low income is a personal one that can best

be expressed through people’s lived experience. Personal stories show that people in

poverty are not all the same. They come from diverse backgrounds and there are

many different reasons for poverty. Some come from disadvantaged backgrounds,

some have long term illnesses or disabilities, others were once well off but a family

crisis or illness changed their lives for the worse. One thing that unites people who do

not have access to a decent standard of living is that they aspire to a ‘normal’ life

where income is secure, they are respected and have a place in society.

________________________________

1 Households reporting zero or negative incomes and self-employed households were excluded from the

sample due to uncertainty about the accuracy of their incomes as measured in the survey. 2 A detailed report of the methodology will be posted at www.acoss.org.au

3 Regrettably, these surveys do not include information that would allow an opportunity to identify

poverty among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 4 For more information on ‘deprivation based’ measures of financial hardship, see ACOSS (2011),

‘Missing out’ at www.acoss.org.au/publications

http://www.acoss.org.au/

http://www.acoss.org.au/publications


3. The risk and profile of poverty

This report looks beyond the overall numbers to identify the groups affected by

poverty, and where they live. We do this in two ways.

First, we show the risk of poverty faced by different groups (such as different types of

family): for example, the proportion of individuals in lone parent families who live

below the poverty line.

Second, we profile the population of people living below poverty lines: for example,

the proportion of people living below poverty lines who are in lone parent families.

Looking at poverty from these two perspectives yields different results. For example,

the risk of poverty within lone parent families is higher than among couples with

children. But because there are more couples with children than lone parent families,

a higher proportion of people below poverty lines come from partnered families.

Table 4 sheds light on the factors which contribute to a person’s risk of living in

poverty. For example, 25% of individuals living in lone parent families were living

below the 50% of median income poverty line and 36.4% were living below the

higher 60% of median income poverty line.

Table 4: Risk of poverty - proportion of people from different groups living below

poverty lines in 2009-10 (%)

By gender

50% of median

income

60% of median

income

Female 13.5 22.2

Male 12.1 19.5

By age

Under 15 17.3 26.1

15 - 25 12.0 16.6

25-64 11.3 16.4

Over 64 13.2 34.9

By family type

Single, no children 25.3 41.5

Lone parent 25.0 36.4

Couple, no children 8.4 18.5

Couple, children 9.0 14.0

By country of birth


Australia 10.6 18.2

Main English speaking country5 11.7 19.6

Other country 15.8 25.0

All (Aged 15 and above only)6 11.7 19.7

By labour force status7

Employed (full time) 3.8 7.1

Employed (part time) 17.2 24.6

Unemployed 63.3 73.2

Not in the labour force (over 64) 14.0 36.1

Not in the labour force (other) 43.7 59.2

By main income source8

Social security payment 36.5 61.3

Wages 5.2 8.8

Other9 16.2 18.8

All people

12.8 20.9

Table 5 describes the profile of people living below the two poverty lines, for example

the number and proportion of all people in poverty who come from lone parent and

married couple families with children. For example in 2010, 25.3% of all individuals

below the 50% poverty line and 22.5% of all individuals below the 60% poverty line,

were in lone parent households.

________________________________

5 ‘Main English speaking country’ refers to New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the United

States, and South Africa. 6 Data on country of birth is only available for adults, so these poverty risks are comparable with that for

all adults, not the overall poverty rate (including children). If children were included, average poverty

rates would be higher. 7 Refers to household reference person.

8 Refers to all household members.

9 For example, investment income.


Table 5: Profile of people living below poverty lines in 2009-10 (%)

By gender

50% of median

income (number)

50% of median

income (%)

60% of median

income (number)

60% of median

income (%)

Female 1,217,600 53.8 2,007,100 54.2

Male 1,047,000 46.2 1,697,600 45.8

All people 2,265,000 100 3,705,000 100

By age

Under 15 575,000 25.4 870,000 23.5

15-25 296,000 13.1 410,000 11.1

25-64 1,060,000 46.8 154,000 41.6

Over 64 334,000 14.7 884,000 23.9

All people 2,265,000 100 3,705,000 100

By family type10

Single, no

children 476,000 21.0 780,000 21.1

Lone parent 572,500 25.3 835,300 22.5

Couple, no

children 346,600 15.3 760,600 20.5

Couple,

children 749,300 33.1 1,168,100 31.5

All people 2,265,000 100 3,705,000 100

By country of birth

Australia 1,070,000 63.3 1,834,000 64.7

Main English

speaking

country 177,000 10.5 297,000 10.5

Other country 443,000 26.2 703,000 24.8

All people 15

years and

above11

1,690,000

100 2,836,000

100

________________________________

10 Numbers do not add up to 100% as some families do not fall into these categories.

11 Data on country of birth is only available for adults.


By labour

force status12

Employed (full

time) 401,000 17.7 760,000 20.5

Employed

(part time) 349,000 15.4 500,000 13.5

Unemployed 189,000 8.4 219,000 5.9

Not in labour

force (retired) 354,000 15.6 910,000 24.6

Not in labour

force (other) 971,000 42.9 1,315,000 35.5

All people 2,265,000 100 3,705,000 100

By main

income

source13

Social security

payment 1,410,000 62.2 2,367,000 63.9

Wages 665,000 29.4 1,117,000 30.2

Other 190,000 8.4 221,000 6.0

All people 2,265,000 100 3,705,000 100

The following sections of the report break down the same information according to

people’s main income source, age, family type, labour force status, and location.

Aside from the information on poverty by location and among people on social

security payments, the figures used are from tables 4 and 5 above.

________________________________

12 Refers to household reference person.

13 Of the household in which people live


Risk of Poverty by Gender

The ‘risk of poverty’ graph shows that women (including female children) face a

significantly higher risk of poverty than men (13.5% compared to 12.1% using the

50% poverty line). This reflects women’s lower employment opportunities and wages,

the greater likelihood that they are engaged in unpaid caring roles, and their lower

investment incomes in retirement14.

________________________________

14 Rebecca Cassells, Riyana Miranti, Binod Nepal, Robert Tanton (2009): She works hard for the money:

Australian women and the gender divide. National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM),

Canberra. Available: http://apo.org.au/node/3880

20.9

19.5

22.2

12.8

12.1

13.5

0 5 10 15 20 25

All people

Male

Female

50% of median income 60% of median income

4. Gender

http://apo.org.au/node/3880


Profile of Poverty by Gender (%)

50% of median income poverty line 60% of median income poverty line

The ‘profile’ of poverty graphs shows that (in the case of the 50% poverty line) 53.8%

of people living in households below the poverty line are female whereas 46.2% are

male.

53.8

46.2

Female Male

54.2

45.8

Female Male


Risk of Poverty by Age

The ‘risk of poverty’ graph demonstrates the role that age plays in vulnerability to

poverty. Children and older people face the highest risk (17.3% and 13.2%

respectively below the 50% poverty line). The high poverty risk among children

reflects the higher costs facing families with children, which parents who are not in

paid work or on a low wage often struggle to meet.

For older people, the risk of living below the 50% poverty line has decreased since

the age pension increase in 2009 (see section below on poverty among social security

payment recipients). However, we can see that over a third of people over 64 still live

below the 60% poverty line. Home ownership provides significant protection against

20.9

26.1

16.6

16.4

34.9

12.8

17.3

12

11.3

13.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

All People

Under 15

15-25

25-64

Over 64


5. Age


Mary – Age Pension

Mary is a 78 year old pensioner who lives in Perth. Due to the cost of high rent

and utility prices life has become a battle for survival. During winter Mary would

turn her heating on for only one hour a day. She would spend much of the day

in bed to keep warm. Her food budget each week is $40. This is a diet of baked

beans, bread, and small amount of fruit, and vegetables. Once a month she

buys a small piece of chicken. Once a week she eats a hot meal provided at a

local church.

Mary considers herself lucky as at least she has a roof over her head.

poverty for many older people (and the lower housing costs that result are taken into

account in this research) but the minority who rent face a higher poverty risk15.

Profile of Poverty by Age (%)


The largest group of people living below poverty lines is middle aged (25 to 64 years)

despite their lower risk of poverty. This reflects the fact that there are more people

overall in the middle-age group than there are in the younger or older age groups.

The high number of children living below the 50% poverty line (575,000 children,

from Table 5, or more than a quarter of all people living below that poverty line) is of

great concern.

________________________________

15 Seelig et al: (2008): Housing consumption patterns & earnings behaviour of people receiving income

support recipients over time, AHURI Final Report No 119. Australian Housing and Urban Research

Institute, Queensland. Available: http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/20257_fr

25.4

13.1

46.8

14.7

Under 15 15-25 25-64 Over 64

23.5

11.1

41.6

23.9

Under 15 15-25 25-64 Over 64

http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/20257_fr


Risk of Poverty by Family Type

The ‘risk of poverty’ graph shows the elevated risk of poverty faced by lone parents

and their children (25% of whom live below the 50% poverty line). This is due partly

to lower levels of employment among lone parents (especially those caring for young

20.9

41.5

36.4

18.5

14

12.8

25.3

25

8.4

9

0 10 20 30 40 50

All People

Single, no children

Lone parent

Couple, no children

Couple, children


6. Family Type


children on their own) and partly to the levels of social security payments for these

families16.

Single people with and without children generally face a higher risk of poverty than

couples (25.3% and 25% compared with 8.4% and 9%), reflecting in part the

economies of scale (for example, sharing housing costs and other bills) available to

people living with partners.

Profile of Poverty by Family Type (%)


The pie charts showing the profile of poverty by family type indicate that the overall

population of people living below poverty lines is almost equally divided between

singles and couples (46.3% of the total compared with 48.4% for the 50% poverty

line). Although the risk of poverty is much higher for singles, there is a higher number

of people overall living in partnered families in Australia.

Nevertheless, these data suggest that almost half of all children living in poverty are

in lone parent families.

________________________________

16 Peter Whiteford and Willem Adema (2007): What Works Best in Reducing Child Poverty: A Benefit or

Work Strategy? OECD, France. Available: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/44/38227981.pdf

21.1

22.5

20.5

31.5

Single, no children

Lone parent

Couple, no children

Couple, children

21

25.3 15.3

33.1

Single, no children

Lone parent

Couple, no children

Couple, children

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/44/38227981.pdf


Cherie – single parent

I am a single mum who has been raising an eight year old son singlehandedly for the past

five years. In short it hasn’t been easy. Trying to provide the basics for my child, whilst

playing the role of two parents, juggling part time wage, and being the main care giver has

got to be the toughest job in the world.

I’m doing my best and fight back against the persistent thoughts that it’s not good

enough. The weekly battle to pay rent, ongoing bills, and basic living expenses is enough

stress for anyone receiving low income, let alone when you’ve got a child who’s totally

dependent on you for their well- being.

I have had to swallow my pride at times and turn to family and charities for that extra bit of

help when a big bill comes in or an emergency comes up, to prevent from being chucked

out in the streets. Still I feel so lucky that I am alive and have a healthy, beautiful son that I

will watch grow into an adult, who despite the struggles will one day give back to our

community for the support he is now being afforded.

Below the minimum wage*

Centrelink is less than the minimum wage.

I’m raising a child,

supporting two people –

how can that possibly be enough?

Permanently below the poverty level.

What sort of logic…?

I’m expected to do this for

16 years.

I live on very little.

My food budget has disappeared,

my son’s health is affected.

Cheap food,

carbohydrates,

you get fat.

No vegetables in nearly

3 weeks.

No haircut in

6 months.

A haircut means

no money for food.

Next month…

I might have enough

to buy decent amounts of food.

I don’t know…

I live on very little.

Louise

________________________________________________

* Kate Connelly (2010): What body part do I need to sell?

Jobs Australia


Risk of Poverty by Country of Birth

Note: ‘Main English speaking country’ refers to New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the

United States, and South Africa.

20.9

18.2

19.6

25

12.8

10.6

11.7

15.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

All people

Australia

Main English speaking country

Non-English speaking country


7. Country of birth


The ‘risk of poverty’ graph shows that adults born in countries where English is not

the main language faced a much higher risk of poverty (15.8% using the 50% poverty

line) than those born in Australia (10.6%), or in an English speaking country (11.7%)17.

This is likely to reflect the difficulties that migrants from non-English speaking

countries face in securing well paid employment in Australia which include (in many,

though not all cases) language barriers, limited skills that are recognised in Australia,

and discrimination18.

Profile of Poverty by Country of birth (%)


The ‘profile of poverty’ graph shows that 26.2% of adults living in households below

the 50% poverty line are from a non English-speaking country.

________________________________

17 Data on country of birth is only available for adults. Note that overall poverty risks for adults are lower

than those for children, so if children were included in these data the poverty risks shown here would be

higher. 18

Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2010): How new migrants fare: Analysis of the Continuous

Survey of Australia’s Migrants. Australian Government, Canberra. Available:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/csam-results-2010.pdf

63.3 10.5

26.2

Australia


Non English speaking countries

64.7 10.5

24.8

Australia


Non English speaking countries

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/csam-results-2010.pdf


Risk of Poverty by Labour Market Status (%)

The graph on risk of poverty shows that unemployed people face a far higher risk of

poverty (63.3% below the 50% poverty line) than those who are employed or out of

the labour force. This partly reflects the level of the Newstart Allowance for

unemployed people (discussed later) which is less than half the disposable income of

a person on a fulltime minimum wage.

20.9

7.1

24.6

73.2

36.1

59.2

12.8

3.8

17.2

63.3

14

43.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

All People

Employed (full time)

Employed (part time)

Unemployed

Not in the labour force (over 64)

Not in the labour force (other)


8. Labour force status


Employed (Full

Time), 17.7

Employed (Part

Time), 15.4

Unemployed, 8.4

Not in labour force

(retired), 15.6

Not in labour force

(other), 42.9

The risk of poverty among people of working age outside the paid labour force

(43.7%) is also relatively high. Many of these people have disabilities or caring roles

and are reliant on social security payments such as Disability Support Pension,

Parenting Payment and Carer Payment.

The risk of poverty (14%) among older people not in the labour force, who are mostly

retired, sits in between that of people with paid work and unemployed people. This

reflects the higher rate of Age Pension compared to Newstart Allowance, the

increasing number of people retiring with at least some superannuation, and the

lower housing costs of those who own their homes outright.

Profile of Poverty by Labour Market Status (%)


Employed (full

time), 20.5

Employed (part time), 13.5

Unemployed, 5.9

Not in labour force

(retired), 24.6

Not in labour force

(other), 35.5


Case Study – Jacqui, Contract Cleaner

Jacqui is a contract cleaner from QLD who

earns around $500 per week for 26 hours

work. She has two teenage children. They

live in a rented house along with Jacqui’s

niece who helps pay the $420 per week

rent.

Jacqui says: ‘the money I get doesn’t half

way cut it. I can only work the hours I do

because I have to be there for my son’

(who has disabilities).

‘I buy the cheapest brands,’ she said. ‘We

sometimes have mince and chicken but

not steak it’s too expensive. So is petrol. I

need a car though because of work. It

would take me three hours to get to my

job on two buses.’

Jacqui doesn’t have a home phone or

internet at home because of the line rental

charge and has a $30 a month cap on her

mobile phone. ‘I sometimes can’t even pay

the $35 for each module of my sons TAFE

course,’ said Jacqui.

The ‘profile’ of poverty charts paint a

different picture. Although workers in

paid employment face a lower risk of

poverty, they form one third (33.1%) of

all people below the 50% poverty line.

The reason for this is that there are

more employees than unemployed

people overall. Almost half of

employed people living below the 50%

poverty line (15.4% out of 33.1%)

have part time jobs only.

Since the minimum fulltime wage is

above the 50% poverty line for a

single adult, it is likely that most

employed workers living below that

poverty line are either employed part

time or are supporting dependent

children on a low wage.


Risk of Poverty by Main Income Source (%)

The striking feature of the ‘risk of poverty’ graph is that the risk of poverty is much

greater among those whose main household income source is social security

payments (36.5% compared with 12.8% overall). This reflects the fact that many of

these payments sit below the poverty lines (especially the higher 60% poverty line,

see Table 8 below). This means that households mainly reliant on those payments are

20.9

61.3

8.8

18.8

12.8

36.5

5.2

16.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

All People

Social security

Wages

Other


9. Main income source


Ahmed, Newstart Recipient

28 year old Ahmed has been on different income support payments since 2005,

including four years on Youth Allowance while undertaking a science degree which

he completed in late 2011. Ahmed was able to top up his Youth Allowance with 20

hours a week paid work as a security guard.

Since completing his degree in a specialist research area, he has struggled to find a

job and does unpaid voluntary work at two different research institutions in the hope

that some paid work will come his way.

In the meantime he is left to survive on Newstart Allowance, which is barely covering

his rent and basic living expenses. Recently he moved in with his partner who only

last week gave birth to their first child. He is hopeful that life will get better.

63.9

30.2

6

Social security payment Wages Other

62.2

29.4

8.4

Social security payment Wages Other

likely to be living below the poverty line unless they have other sources of income

such as part time earnings or superannuation.

Profile of Poverty by Main Income Source (%)


The pie charts indicate that the majority of people living in poverty (62.2% based on

the 50% poverty line) rely on a social security payment, but a sizeable minority have

wages as their main income source (29.4%). As discussed previously, this is due to the

higher number of wage-earning households overall. It is likely that most of these

people live in households where people receive part time earnings only, or are raising

children on a low wage.


10. Location

This map illustrates the risk of poverty within each State

Note: Data is not available separately for the ACT or NT due to small sample sizes in the ABS survey

Table 6 shows how the risk of poverty varies between States, and between people

living in capital cities within each State and the rest of the State. It also shows the

extent to which the risk of poverty is greater outside capital cities.

12.0%

12.5%

12.4%

14.3%

11.8%

11.8%

ACT


Table 6: Risk of poverty - proportions of people below poverty lines by State in 2009-10

using the 50% and 60% of median income poverty lines (%)

50% of median

Capital

city

Balance of

State

Difference

(non metro – metro)

All

New South Wales 15.2 12.7 -2.5 14.3

Victoria 11.4 12.9 1.5 11.8

Queensland 9.5 15.0 5.4 12.5

South Australia 11.8 14.1 2.3 12.4

Western Australia 12.4 10.6 -1.8 12.0

Tasmania 13.1 14.2 1.1 13.7

Total 12.6 13.1 0.5 12.8

60% of median

Capital

city

Balance of

State

Difference

(non metro – metro)

All

New South Wales 21.6 22.2 0.6 21.8

Victoria 19.6 23.8 4.2 20.7

Queensland 16.4 25.4 9.0 21.3

South Australia 20.3 27.6 7.3 22.2

Western Australia 18.2 17.8 -0.4 18.1

Tasmania 21.7 25.8 4.1 24.0

Total 19.7 22.8 3.1 20.9

Note: Data not available separately for the ACT or NT due to small sample sizes in the ABS survey.

The overall risk of poverty is higher (based on the 50% poverty line) in New South

Wales and Tasmania than in the other States. This may reflect a combination of

weaker employment opportunities, high housing costs, and/or the different age

profiles of different States. For example, although average rents are lower in

Tasmania than in most other States, it has relatively high unemployment and a high

proportion of older people.


The risk of poverty is greater outside capital cities (especially in Queensland), in part

due to higher unemployment in regional Australia. The exceptions are New South

Wales and Western Australia, where very high housing costs in the capital cities have

increased the risk of poverty (when those costs are taken into account, as they are in

this research).

Table 7: Profile of the population below poverty lines in 2009-10 by State/Territory

State/Territory 50% of median income

60% of median income

Number % Number %

New South Wales 835,000 36.9 1,276,700 34.5

Victoria 526,700 23.3 925,600 25.0

Queensland 430,900 19.0 735,500 19.9

South Australia 165,200 7.3 295,900 8.0

Western Australia 211,300 9.3 319,500 8.6

Tasmania 56,000 2.5 97,900 2.6

ACT/NT 38,800 1.7 53,500 1.4

All people 2,264,600 100 3,704,700 100


Marjorie’s story

Earlier this year, Marjorie was

informed by Centrelink that they were

taking away her wife's pension 14

weeks (bereavement payment) after

her husband's passing after being his

principle carer for 13 years of his

illness. Because she is 63 years old

she is not entitled to the Age pension

and has been forced to live on much

less on the Widows Allowance

payment of $486 per fortnight.

Marjorie said: ‘This news was

devastating, especially soon after such

a big loss in my life. If it wasn’t for the

loving support and help of my children

I simply don’t know how I could

survive on so little money.’

Table 8 compares the maximum rates of

major social security payments with the

poverty lines. It indicates how far above or

below poverty lines people relying fully on

these payments (those with no other source

of income) lie19.

It shows that Newstart Allowance for single

adults was $74 per week (21%) below the

50% of median income poverty line. Youth

Allowance for independent young people

was $172 per week (48%) below the poverty

line. The difference between these payments

and the poverty line is $56 per week greater

in cases where households are not eligible

for Rent Assistance.

Following a $32 per week pension increase

(above inflation) in September 2009, the

single pension rate was closer to, but still

$22 per week (6%) below, the 50% poverty

line. A study by NATSEM estimated at

the time that an increase of that size would reduce the risk of poverty among

single age pensioners by around 10 percentage points20. For those receiving

Rent Assistance, it was $34 per week above the 50% line but $38 below the 60% line.

________________________________

19 Note that the maximum social security payment rates include Family Tax Benefits (for families with

children) and Rent Assistance (RA) in some cases (see Table 8).

11. Poverty among people on social security payments


Payments for a lone parent family with two primary school age children on the

Parenting Payment Single payment (including Family Tax Benefits) were $17 per week

(3%) below the 50% poverty line ($83 for those not receiving Rent Assistance). The

income of those lone parent families on the lower Newstart Allowance was $57 per

week or 10% below that poverty line ($123 for those not receiving Rent Assistance).

Similarly, social security payments for couples were generally below the 50% line,

though closer to it in proportional terms. Newstart Allowance for a couple without

children was $73 per week (14%) below the 50% poverty line, and (together with

Family Tax Benefits) it was $95 below (13%) below that poverty line for those with 2

children. The pension rate for a couple without children was $30 (6%) below the 50%

poverty line ($22 above it for those receiving Rent Assistance).

Table 8: Comparison of selected social security payments and poverty lines in 2009-10

(dollars per week)

Maximum rates of

payment

50% of median

income

60% of median

income

Newstart Allowance

Single, no children $284 $358 $430

Single, 2 children $516 $573 $688

Couple, no children $464 $537 $645

Couple, 2 children $657 $752 $903

Youth Allowance


Parenting Payment Single

Single, 2 children $556 $573 $688

Pension payments


Couple, no children $507 $537 $645

Note: Payment rates at December quarter 2009, including maximum rate of Rent Assistance (RA) and

Family Tax Benefits (FTB) where appropriate. RA is included for Allowance and Parenting Payment

recipients, but not for pensioners as the vast majority are home owners. The maximum rates of RA were

$56 for singles, $52 for couples and $66 for the families with children. Many households on Allowance

payments do not receive RA, and their payments were lower than indicated here. Conversely, a minority

20Robert Tanton, Yogi Vidyattama, Justine McNamara, Quoc Ngu Vu and Ann Harding (2009): Old, single

and poor: using microsimulation and microdata to analyse poverty and the impact of policy change

among older Australians. Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy, vol. 28 no. 2,

pages 102 - 120.


of pensioners receive RA, in which case their payments were higher than indicated. The Youth Allowance

rate is for a young person 18 to 24 years living away from home. All children are aged 6-11 years. Some

lone parents receive the higher Parenting Payment Single payment while others receive the lower

Newstart Allowance payment. Pension payments include Age, Disability, and Carer pensions.

Table 9 compares the risk of poverty among recipients of different income support

payments. Just over half (52.2%) of people in households where the ‘reference

person’ receives Newstart Allowance (for unemployed people) are in households with

incomes below the 50% poverty line. This reflects the low level of that payment (as

shown in Table 8) and the fact that only about one in five recipients has earnings

from employment. Also, an above-average proportion of Newstart recipients rent

their accommodation and therefore face high housing costs21.

Almost half (44.7%) of people in households with Parenting Payment (most of whom

are lone parents) are below the poverty line. This group is also more likely than the

average household to rent their housing, and around one in three has earnings from

employment. Along with Newstart recipients, people on Parenting Payment did not

receive the September 2009 pension increase so their maximum rate of payment is

significantly lower than other pensions.

A slightly lower proportion (41.2%) of people in households with Disability Support

Pension were below the poverty line. While this group benefited from the 2009

pension increase, only about in ten has part-time earnings.

Age pensioners had a lower risk of poverty (13.8%) than recipients of the other

payments listed in table 9, which reflects lower housing costs (for the majority who

own their homes outright), the pension increase in 2009, and income from

superannuation and other investments.

The risk of poverty among people in households with Carer Payment (24.1%) sits

between that for Age Pensioners and the other payments. Carer Payment recipients

are unlikely to have paid employment because they are caring fulltime for a relative

with a disability, though they have a higher level of home ownership than recipients

of the other working-age payments.

In all cases, over one third of people in households with these social security

payments had incomes below the higher 60% poverty line. This reflects the fact that

the maximum rate of their social security payments sat below that poverty line, as

shown in Table 8.

________________________________

21 FaHCSIA (2012): Income support customers: a statistical overview 2011. Statistical Paper no. 10.

Department of Families and Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra. Available:

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/07_2012/stps10.pdf

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/07_2012/stps10.pdf


Table 9: Risk of poverty - proportions of people in households receiving social security

payments living below the 50% and 60% of Median Income Poverty Lines in 2010 (%)

Below 50% of median

income

Below 60% of median

income

Newstart Allowance 52.2 64.8

Parenting Payment 44.7 63.8

Carer Payment 24.1 34.1

Disability Support Pension 41.5 65.9

Age Pension 13.8 38.1

Note: People living in households where the reference person receives one of these payments and the

household’s income is below the poverty line.

The information in table 9 on the risk of poverty among people on major social

security payments is illustrated in the graph below.

Risk of poverty among people in households receiving social security payments (%)

Table 10 compares the ‘poverty gaps’ for recipients of major payments. The poverty

gap is a measure of how far below the poverty line the incomes of those people

living in poverty are. It is the average gap between the income of households that live

below the poverty line and the poverty line. A large poverty gap indicates that most

of those who are in poverty are likely to be living a long way below the poverty line.

64.8

63.8

34.1

65.9

38.1

52.2

44.7

24.1

41.5

13.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Newstart Allowance

Parenting Payment

Carer Payment

Disability Support Pension

Age Pension

Below 50% of median income Below 60% of median income


Table 10: Average ‘poverty gap’ between the income of those below poverty lines and

the relevant poverty line in 2005-06 and 2009-10 (dollars per week)

Below 50% of median

income

($ per week)

Below 60% of median

income

($ per week)

Newstart Allowance $182 $222

Parenting Payment $170 $251

Carer Payment $196 $375

Disability Support Pension $129 $168

Age Pension $86 $81 22

Note: Average gap between income of households and poverty line, for those households living below

the poverty line whose reference person receives one of these payments.

Table 10 should be read in conjunction with Table 9 (the risk of poverty among

people in households receiving social security payments), as they measure different

aspects of poverty. In some cases a large proportion of people in households

receiving a certain payment may be living below the poverty line, but only a small

distance below it; while in others a small proportion may be living below the poverty

line but much further below it.

Since it is likely that most people in these households below the poverty line have

little or no income apart from social security, these ‘poverty gaps’ largely reflect the

differences between the payments and the poverty line (see Table 8). Other factors

include the incomes (if any) of other household members and housing costs.

Table 10 shows that when the 50% poverty line is used, in 2010 the highest ‘poverty

gap’ ($196 per week) is found among households with recipients of Carer Payment23.

The second-highest poverty gap ($182) is for households where the highest income-

earner received Newstart Allowance. The ‘poverty gap’ for people in households

receiving Parenting Payment ($170) is slightly lower but still substantial. While lone

parent families receive higher social security payments, their costs are also greater

(due to the cost of raising children alone and the high housing costs of this group).

________________________________

22 It is possible for the average poverty gap to be lower for households living below than the 60% line

than for those below the 50% line. This can occur where a large group of households on a social security

payment has incomes in between the two poverty lines. This is likely to be the case here because the

maximum rate of Age Pension is close to the 50% poverty line. However, the risk of poverty will always

be greater for people in households living below the higher poverty line (see table 9). 23

The sample size for this group is the smallest among the social security-recipient households, so this

estimate should be treated with caution.


The poverty gaps are also substantial among Disability Support Pensioners at ($129

per week) and Age Pensioners ($86), though lower than for the other payment

recipients. This reflects the smaller gaps between the maximum rates of those

payments and the 50% poverty line (see Table 8).


11. Trends in the risk of poverty from 2003 to 2010 (50% of

median income poverty line)

A comparison of data from a series of ABS Surveys of Income and Housing (SIH)

shows that the risk of poverty in Australia rose between 2003 and 2010.

Unfortunately, due to changes in the way the ABS defined ‘income’ from one survey

to the next, these data are not strictly comparable from 2003 all the way though to

2010 (hence the break in the graph around 2005). For the same reason, the ‘risk of

poverty’ rate for 2010 in this historical comparison is slightly different (12.2%) to the

poverty rate used elsewhere in this Report (12.8%)24.

Poverty trend, 50% median income, 2003-04 to 2009-10

Nevertheless, the available ABS data on the proportion of individuals living below the

50% of median income poverty line suggest that:

Poverty increased overall by approximately one third of a percentage point

from 2003 to 2010.

It rose substantially from 2003 to 2007 (from 11.9% to 14.5%)

It declined substantially (from 14.6% to 12.3%) from 2007 to 2010.

________________________________

24 This is because the poverty estimate for 2010 in the graph below is based on the definition of income

the ABS used in 2005, rather than the most up to date one (which is more comprehensive and includes

such factors as irregular overtime and bonuses). For the data provided in the rest of this report the

researchers used the most recent (and comprehensive) ABS income definition.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

2003-04 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10

ABS 2004 income definition ABS 2006 income definition

ABS 2010 income definition


The main reason for the increase in poverty from 2003 to 2007 is likely to be that

community incomes (represented by the ‘median income’ measure on which the

poverty lines are based) rose strongly over this period but a growing minority of

people (those below the poverty line) fell behind. For example, the real incomes of

people on some social security payments fell behind because their payments were

only indexed to the CPI and not to wages. Over this period, the impact of the rise in

overall community incomes on poverty levels was greater than the poverty-reducing

impact of the fall in unemployment.

The reasons for the dip in poverty between 2007 and 2010 are likely to include the

economic downturn in 2008-09 (which depressed median incomes without

substantially increasing unemployment) and the increases in pension payments for

single people in September 2009 which lifted many people with small amounts of

non-pension income (such as interest from investments) above the 50% of median

income poverty line.

Documents

ACOSS Poverty Report 2012_Final